About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
miranda rights to keep him in a gray area right now whether or not he would be considered an enemy combatant or information that he would be allowing to investigators may not be used against him if he were try to be tried as an american civilian. as i talked there with roger about the fact that congressman peter king over the weekend said the homeland is the battlefield and that times have really changed, what are your thoughts about what the congressman has said about the fbi and that they may have missed red flags and the fact that the homeland is the battlefield? >> as you know, thomas, the fbi conducts thousands of interviews like this. i will say that they do a good job. i would say unless there was some evidence that would lead them to not do something to this individual, i would say they did a good job. i think my colleague, peter king, is not just monday morning quarterbacking but arm chair quarterbacking. we don't no what our investigative authorities know. i would say let them do their job. we can comment but when we start pointing fingers, i think we just add to the conf
by federal authorities. but in the beginning, he will not be given the usual miranda warning about the right to remain silent. instead, the government will invoke a rule that allows questioning a suspect without giving advice of rights. >> there is a public safety exemption in cases of national security, and central charges involving acts of terrorism, and so government has that opportunity right now. >> the government invoked that same rule in the case of the so-called underwear bomber. as in his case, it allows questioning to learn of any potential plots or accomplices that could present a continuing threat. >> the first questions the fbi will focus on are specific threats that he might be aware of. likely, are there any other improvised explosive devices? were there other people working in the network? the sorts of things that go directly to whether or not there's a continuing threat to public safety. >> reporter: he'll face charges brought by the justice department, because terrorism is a federal crime with a trial in a regular civilian court. and as in other high profile terrorism cases
not get his miranda rights. >> among of group of republicans calling for the boston bombing suspect to be considered an enemy combatant. that means he would not have the same constitutional protection as a regular citizen, with regard to what he says as the investigation moves forward. will this happen? california congressman, a senior member of the intelligence committee. congressman, always good to see you. i know that you disagree with the congressman and think that the suspect is in custody. is entitled to his miranda rights. why? >> well, i think the administration is handling it exactly correct. there is a public safety exception under the miranda allowing law enforcement to interview him, making sure there are no other bombs, threats, perpetrators still out there giving the law enforcement flexibility to do the that prior to miranda and i think the court will interpret it broadly and give them the time they need to make sure that the public is safe. after that, he will have to be mirandized, doesn't mean the end of cooperation, but no basis yet to conclude they should be trea
okayed the suspension of the suspect's miranda rights. is that a temporary suspension? >> reporter: yes, by law it is. it's called the public safety exception to the miranda rule. normally you have to tell someone they have a right to remain silent and if you don't, then you can't use anything they tell you in court. so that's why the miranda warning is given. but there is an exception. you don't have to do it if there's a possible threat to public safety. and here obviously there's a concern about whether there are potential accomplices. investigators say they haven't found any. or other explosives. they say they haven't found any of those either but that's what they want to ask him. and this exception probably begins to expire the moment you invoke it so it's probably no good for more than a day or two but nonetheless they can do that. afterwards they'll have to give him his miranda warning and say whether he'll continue to answer questions. the justice department says even in very serious cases like this, most people in custody do continue to talk. >> pete, who's going to be interrog
/11 of last year. should he be given miranda rights? should he be treated as an enemy combatant? that debate has started. give me the facts, first, what they'll do. >> this administration has made a policy decision here. first, that's number one. secondly, he cannot be tried as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal, because that law was changed by the national defense authorization act of 2012 that says you can't do that to an american citizen. what some advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court, but start the questioning. treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi, cia, dod. they will question him without giving him a miranda warning. r they don't have
this person without reading miranda rights because -- >> you're saying in foreign custody? >> even in u.s. custody there are situations now where a lot of people would say, you don't need to read miranda rights right away. this decision -- if a very strong suspect is picked up or somebody could provide significant information, i think that decision, whether or not to mirandize could be -- >> presumably as the fbi is going through this, they are looking to make sure there are no secondary attacks, first priority, right, imminent threat. >> absolutely. >> and second of all, to make sure they maintain the possibility of ultimately getting a criminal conviction? >> absolutely. >> joining us is an eyewitness to the bombing. he ran the marathon and was in the medical tent when the explosions happened. joining us by phone from boston. describe what you were doing in the medical tent at what time and what the scene there was like. >> yeah. the first thing, this was wave three, so i was running -- i was a charity runner, so we started at approximately 10:40 a.m. then i finished just under four,
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)